17 Cited authorities

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (1991) Cited 9,363 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"
Hutto v. Finney
437 U.S. 678 (1978) Cited 2,540 times
Holding that, in the context of institutional reform litigation, the district court's "exercise of discretion ... is entitled to special deference because of the trial judge's years of experience with the problem at hand"
In re Seagate Technology
497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 801 times 86 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement
Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos.
62 F.3d 1469 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 423 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that sanctions under the court's inherent power can "include . . . drawing adverse evidentiary inferences"
Chavous v. District of Columbia Financial Responsibility & Management Assistance Authority
201 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2001) Cited 245 times
Concluding that stay discovery pending a decision on a dispositive motion that may resolve the case "furthers the ends of economy and efficiency, since if either [parties'] dispositive motion is granted, there will be no need for discovery"
In re Echostar Commc'ns Corp.
448 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 183 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the assertion of the advice-of counsel defense against a charge of willful patent infringement necessarily involves issues of substantive patent law
Neuder v. Battelle Pacific Northwest Nat. Laboratory
194 F.R.D. 289 (D.D.C. 2000) Cited 86 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that communications are not privileged where in-house counsel “is acting solely in his capacity as a business advisor” and “the legal advice,” if any, “is merely incidental to business advice”
Quantum Corp. v. Tandon Corp.
940 F.2d 642 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 63 times
Denying review of court’s order denying the request for bifurcation of proceedings to avoid disclosure of patent infringement opinions
Boca Investerings Partnership v. United States
31 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 1998) Cited 41 times
Finding documents prepared by a corporate attorney who worked on business side of office were nevertheless entitled to protection because advice was predominately legal as opposed to business
Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc.
247 F.R.D. 63 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 20 times
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP, by: L.J. Chris Martiniak, Esq., Michael M. Markman, Esq., & Robert D. Fram, Esq., Wei-Drin Lee, Esq., Samuel F. Ernst, Esq., San Francisco, CA, Farrell Fritz, P.C., by: John P. McEntee, Esq., Uniondale, NY, for Plaintiff. Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, by: Alan M. Anderson, Esq., Mark E. Ungerman, Esq., & Sharna A. Wahlgren Esq., Minneapolis, MN, Rivkin Radler LLP, by: Stephen J. Smirti, Jr., Esq., Uniondale, NY, for Defendants. Gale
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 172,183 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,441 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs
28 U.S.C. § 1927 Cited 8,937 times 81 Legal Analyses
Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct

Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Limited et al

17 Cited authorities

Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

Holding that, in the context of institutional reform litigation, the district court's "exercise of discretion ... is entitled to special deference because of the trial judge's years of experience with the problem at hand"

Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement

Holding that sanctions under the court's inherent power can "include . . . drawing adverse evidentiary inferences"

Concluding that stay discovery pending a decision on a dispositive motion that may resolve the case "furthers the ends of economy and efficiency, since if either [parties'] dispositive motion is granted, there will be no need for discovery"

Holding that the assertion of the advice-of counsel defense against a charge of willful patent infringement necessarily involves issues of substantive patent law

Finding that communications are not privileged where in-house counsel “is acting solely in his capacity as a business advisor” and “the legal advice,” if any, “is merely incidental to business advice”

Denying review of court’s order denying the request for bifurcation of proceedings to avoid disclosure of patent infringement opinions

Finding documents prepared by a corporate attorney who worked on business side of office were nevertheless entitled to protection because advice was predominately legal as opposed to business

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct